the_mysterious_mr_enterfandomcom-20200214-history
The First Amendment - Freedom of Speech
The first Amendment of the United States constitution is first because it is the most important. It grants us the right to free speech, which is generally important to stopping oppressive regimes (and is often the first one that an oppressive regime will try to attack). Worded exactly as it is in the constitution "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." That's more or less it. Let's talk about what it actually means, or is "supposed" to mean. Most of the amendments of the United States constitution were written in a way to be interpreted to any time, sometimes ones that the people who wrote them can't possibly imagine. And you shouldn't be surprised when people interpret them in... less than ethical ways. The fourteenth amendment was made after the American Civil War that more or less stated that people have equal protection under the law no matter their race, sex, etc. Somehow we got the concept of "corporate personhood" out of this. Yes, in the United States, a corporation, like Google, has the exact same rights as a person (actually in some ways they have more rights, but that's a story for another day). This can be a problem when I don't know... a corporation can plead the fifth. But sometimes they have the potential to be interpreted for the positive, like despite not being written into the constitution, people often claim their right to privacy on the ninth amendment. The ninth amendment states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This means that people don't ONLY have the rights laid out in the other amendments. It's complicated. And you'd never believe some of the things protected by some of these amendments. Corporate lobbying (aka bribery in all but the word) is protected under the first amendment because the people can "petition the government for a redress of grievances" and because corporations are legally people they get that right. Some things are not protected by the first amendment. Let's start with the most misunderstood part of the amendment. "Congress shall make no law..." In the United States, your right to free speech is only defended from the law. So for example, internet moderation or the business telling you what you can or cannot say does not violate your right to free speech. It is censorship, yes, but it is not a violation of your free speech. If you get blocked on an internet forum for saying something that got someone mad does not prevent you from going somewhere else and saying the exact same thing. If you get kicked out of every website because of what you say, well that's your problem. The right to free speech is not "the right to an audience" Just because you can say whatever you want does not make anyone else obligated to listen to what you have to say. Also on that note, being criticized does not violate or even challenge your right to free speech. Limits on Free Speech Despite the vague wording of each of these amendments, they're not as encompassing as they sound. For example, the second amendment gives me the right to bear arms. If we followed that law to the letter then I should be able to buy a bazooka on impulse and walk into a crowded mall. I'm obviously not able to do that, in any state any more. For example, you can't say that your sugar pills will cure someone's diabetes. I mean, think about copyright law. According to the law I should be able to use anyone's intellectual property however I want. So let's talk about lying. Slander and libel, are they protected under free speech? Well no. But lying in general? Depending on the context it's yes, no, or maybe. In a case of slander/libel, the burden of proof is on the plantiff. To get someone arrested for slander/libel, there is a malice standard. You have to prove "that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity" Because people can't read minds, this is quite difficult to do. Although with the advent of the internet and forums and the degradation of privacy it does get easier and easier. Why is the law written this way? It was decided in the Civil Rights movement. No one wanted to do any reporting because they might have been held responsible for libel. The Court noted that true statements may not be said if the law went the other way out of fear that anything they said could have later proved to be false. Don't take this as an invitation to go lying about people either. The law can be changed the other way too if it becomes problematic enough. I mean take this for example, no news source in the United States is legally obligated to tell you the truth. They can tell you whatever the hell they want and it's totally legal. I knew there was a conspiracy among the weather people >.> Freedom of Speech vs. the Freedom to Privacy You may have already noticed that there's a conflict here. Due to an interpretation of the ninth Amendment, the citizens of the United States have the right to privacy (from the Government, Facebook can do whatever they want with your information if you signed the terms of use). We also have the right to free speech. So.... is it legal to publish someone's personal information? Not usually, no. You can sue someone if you publish private information that "is not of legitimate concern." It's disclosure also must be "highly offensive to a reasonable person." So yes, posting someone's home address and telling people to beat the shit out of them is illegal. And once again, the law is upon to interpretation. For example, if you report that someone is homosexual and they actually are homosexual several things could happen. If say, the person was fired and harassed because of this fact that "is not of legitimate concern" then yes, they do have the right to sue you for that. If the person is totally okay with it and feels like they don't have to be secretive about it, then they're most likely not going to sue you. The best way to do this? Do not publish private information that no one should give a shit about. What would be a legitimate concern? I don't know, the location of someone planning to blow up a building. Obscenity/Hate Speech Welcome to the most controversial part of free speech. There are extremists on both sides of both of these arguments. So, are these protected under the first amendment? Once again: yes, no, maybe, I don't know, and it varies. Let's start with obscenity. If it were completely protected by free speech anyone could put anything on television, including child pornography. With obscenity enforced to the maximum, then media would be subject to following the political and social trends of the time to the absolute. The debate is finding a place in between the two. And hate speech. By definition, hate speech is "inflammatory statements made directly or indirectly towards a group based on said group's race, skin color, religion, beliefs, background, mental health, physical ability, social class, sexual orientation, gender and so on that may incite violence or encourage discrimination" So, like before, there's a huge spectrum. It can be as simple as using an epitaph to describe someone's race in a negative way. It can be as advanced as picketing the funerals of homosexuals. On one side of the fence, people use claims of hate speech to stifle free speech. On the other side of the fence, people claim free speech to discriminate towards people. This is balanced with the fact that people don't have the right not to be offended. Just because something is offensive, you don't have the right under the law to make it go away. On the other hand, if you've posted something offensive, you don't have the right not to be criticized. Can people be arrested for hate speech? Well, they can be arrested for a hate crime... And if you constantly post hate speech any crime that you may commit may be construed to being a hate crime. So... Protecting the Freedom of Speech I think it's safe to say that a lot of the higher ups don't like free speech. Whether it's a business that can't take criticism or a politician who wants to be a dictator. And yes, constitutional rights can be restricted in some way, shape, and form. What I'm saying is don't give these people the ammo that they need. You don't help protect your second amendment rights by walking around public buildings with loaded guns. You harm your freedom of speech by: * Claiming censorship when there is none: The first amendment only protects you from government censorship. And when you go around saying otherwise, it makes it harder to detect when some sneaky people actually try to violate the first amendment. * Slandering someone: You have the right of free speech. If by some quirk you have the "right to lie about people" don't be surprised when people get angry enough to try and take away the later and do damage to the former * Claiming malicious actions to be under "Free speech": If you do keep using hate speech, people within the group you're hating will be less inclined to defend the freedom of speech, especially if it leads to legitimate discrimination. * Obscenity for the sake of obscenity: Pretty much the same reason as above. It makes the freedom of speech less desirable. * Assuming you have the right to an audience: So if you've got a website so inflammatory that no host wants to support it anymore... maybe you should realize that no one actually wants that speech around. * Assuming you have the protection from criticism: If you do an action purely to exercise your free speech rights, and get angry/defensive when people use their free speech against you... well, the best argument against something is a terrible one for it. * Posting people's private information: This should be more or less obvious. Yeah, you can do any of these, under the right of free speech. If you want to keep it as you champion it though, you won't. Freedom of Speech is a powerful tool, and when stupid people use power tools, they often get hurt. Category:Miscellaneous